has a terrific article by James Fallows on "Bush's Lost Year." It's about the period in 2002 that led to the decision to invade Iraq--or rather, that led to the enacting of a foregone conclusion. Here's a snippet:<br><br>[color:blue]As a political matter, whether the United States is now safer or more vulnerable is of course ferociously controversial. That the war was necessary—and beneficial—is the Bush Administration's central claim. That it was not is the central claim of its critics. But among national-security professionals there is surprisingly little controversy. Except for those in government and in the opinion industries whose job it is to defend the Administration's record, they tend to see America's response to 9/11 as a catastrophe. I have sat through arguments among soldiers and scholars about whether the invasion of Iraq should be considered the worst strategic error in American history—or only the worst since Vietnam. Some of these people argue that the United States had no choice but to fight, given a pre-war consensus among its intelligence agencies that Iraq actually had WMD supplies. Many say that things in Iraq will eventually look much better than they do now. But about the conduct and effect of the war in Iraq one view prevails: it has increased the threats America faces, and has reduced the military, financial, and diplomatic tools with which we can respond.<br><br>"Let me tell you my gut feeling," a senior figure at one of America's military-sponsored think tanks told me recently, after we had talked for twenty minutes about details of the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. "If I can be blunt, the Administration is full of [censored]. In my view we are much, much worse off now than when we went into Iraq. That is not a partisan position. I voted for these guys. But I think they are incompetent, and I have had a very close perspective on what is happening. Certainly in the long run we have harmed ourselves. We are playing to the enemy's political advantage. Whatever tactical victories we may gain along the way, this will prove to be a strategic blunder."<br><br>This man will not let me use his name, because he is still involved in military policy. He cited the experiences of Joseph Wilson, Richard Clarke, and Generals Eric Shinseki and Anthony Zinni to illustrate the personal risks of openly expressing his dissenting view. But I am quoting him anonymously—as I will quote some others—because his words are representative of what one hears at the working level.</font color=blue><br><br>Of course, this is a liberal rag--gee, it's one of the first places that published Emerson and Thoreau. How low can they get, eh? <br><br>

i thought the article was incredibly well written. i sighed when the magazine arrived thinking the "lost year" was going to be about his missed national guard service. i was delighted to see that they were, in fact, focusing on dubya's tenure as president . . . something quite relevant to the current race. the author makes a powerful argument for why dubya has all but cost us dearly in the war on terror. quite damning, to be sure. should be required reading for all. thanks for sharing some of it.<br><br>"Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a—you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities." dubya 8.6.04

If you have a hard copy subscription, you can register on line too, Sean. All you need is your mailing lable.<br><br>

thanx, i wasn't aware of that tip. there has been much i wanted to share snippets of over the past year, but i was too lazy to retype it. <br><br>"Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a—you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities." dubya 8.6.04

"...it's one of the first places that published Emerson and Thoreau."<br><br>Literature, the most seductive, the most deceiving, the most dangerous of professions. John Morley<br><br>The rest, called literature, is a dossier of human imbecility for the guidance of future professors. Tristan Tzara<br><br>Whenever the cause of the people is entrusted to professors, it is lost. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin <br><br>This is fun! I love to make italics.<br><br>

Neither Emerson nor Thoreau were professors, so Mr. Lenin is irrelevant drjohn--although I'd imagine that being on the windy side of Lenin isn't so bad a thing--right? <br><br>

I'm stealing Vladimir's line. And don't listen to Yoyo. <br><br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener

Hey, I wasn't disagreeing with Vladimir Ilyich--he's definitely right. Academics would spend five years studying the problem and then decide they didn't have enough information. Strategic use of academics is a different story--something that Mr. Bush seems not to like to do too much unless the academic is a tame spaniel.<br><br>

Neuter the spaniel, don't fund his stem cell research even if he was using his own nuts, and I'll agree with you. <br><br><br><br>luciferase is a four nineteener

Who's Yoyo?<br><br>Professors of literature, who for the most part are genteel but mediocre men, can make but a poor defence of their profession, and the professors of science, who are frequently men of great intelligence but of limited interests and education. Yvor Winters<br><br>Having a limited education myself, now I have to go and find out which side of Lenin is the "windy side".<br><br>